Yes.Music4Two said:Hs anyone studdied Hebrew to see what the name Elohyim actually means?
k2svpete said:one way of translating it is 'mighty ones' and I believe it is a reference to angels.
But in the Hebrew Bible the word for angel in these passages is usually (always?) mal'ak not elohim.Throughout scripture we are given examples of people having entertained angels unaware etc.
elagence said:Also, "Elohim", as a plural form of "El" was doing the creating.
link said:The word used for God in Genesis 1:1 is "Elohim," which is a form of the word "El." In the context of Genesis 1:1, there can certainly be no doubt as to who is doing the creating. In the Hebrew language the "im" ending imputes plurality. Therefore, "Elohim" is the plural from of the word "El."
It is interesting to note that each usage of this word throughout the Bible is grammatically incorrect. It is a plural noun used with singular verbs. According to Genesis 1:1, the Creator of the Universe, Elohim, exists as a plural being.
Again, the reason that el is not used is that it (virtually) never is used. If they were using elohim in contrast to el then they would have followed the grammatical rules and pluralized the verbs to reflect the plurality of the word elohim. The reason that YHWH is not used is the same as elsewhere in the text, which is something that scholars debate about, a liberal view would say that the author of the passage was drawing upon a tradition that preferred to use elohim over the Divine Name while more conservative scholars would suggest that Moses was simply being stylistic and for whatever reason thought that the word elohim fit better with the poetic nature of Genesis 1.If this were not so then the word "El" or perhaps Yahweh would have been used.
This incorrectly assumes that plurality neccessarily indicates two. If the writer were trying to speak of two beings he would have used the dual form (elohaim) which would mean 'two els'.Prior to the creation of man we find a conversation between God (Elohim) and an unidentified being ("let Us make man in Our image"). Who is this person with whom God is speaking?
This argument presupposes his conclusion. For instance, he assumes that no where does the bible talk of angels creating, but where else would that fact be mentioned other than in Genesis 1 which he is trying to argue doesn't say that very thing? (note, I do not necessarily think that this is a reference to the angels, but I don't think that we can rule it out in this way). Furthermore, it may not say that angels are created in God's image, but it certainly does not deny it either and as someone above mentioned, when angels walk on earth in the Bible they often are mistaken for people and people are made in the image of God so it certainly is not unreasonable to think that they were made in the image of God.This person, or intelligent being, has some attributes that we can glean from the text. First, the personage is able to speak with God "on His turf", that is, in the realm of timeless eternity.
Secondly, this being apparently has the same kind of creative ability as God ("Let US make"). This describes a cooperative effort between Elohim and the person with whom He is speaking.
Finally, the likeness or image of this being is comparable to God's ("In Our image, after Our likeness").
When confronted with this passage, modern rabbis often claim that God is speaking to the angels. However, this explanation fails to recognize a number of problems.
First, there is no indication in the Bible that angels can create life. Secondly, nowhere is it indicated that angels are made in the image of God. Finally, there is no indication that mankind was made in the image of angels either!
Again, I do not think that he has convincingly argued that these cannot refer to something like the whole host of heaven (something that we see in many passages of the Old Testament) as opposed to the Trinity (something that I would argue never appears in the OT but even those that think that it does would have to admit is significantly more rare than the heavenly court, i.e. God and all his messengers)."Man has become like one of US." To whom is the LORD talking?
Again in Genesis 11:7, God is discussing His solution to the whole earth having one language at the time of the Tower of Babel:
"Come, let US go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another's speech." Genesis 11:7 (NKJ).
The fact that the LORD (Yahweh) refers to Himself in these passages as "Us," is indeed a fascinating hint to the plurality of God.2
But why can't these verses be explained by the plurality of his majesty as well? He correctly identifies the theme of a plural creator throughout the text but he fails to provide reasons why this cannot be a majestic pluarilty. Instead, he seems to think that the plurality found in these other texts proves his point. Quite the opposite is true.The plurality of the Creator seen in Genesis 1:1 has been dismissed by some as simply a description of God's plural majesty. However, the plurality of the Creator is also seen in a number of very provocative verses.
Again, he has not convincingly argued (from a linguistic standpoint) that the other interpretations (that of God and his angels or God in his majesty) cannot be true.These verses present a remarkable paradox. The Bible clearly teaches that there is but one God and one Creator. Yet this one God is a plurality of more than one personage, each of which has the attributes of God and performs the works of God.
In this verse we are told that God is One. However, when we examine the word "echad," translated "one," we discover an interesting meaning. This word, "echad," comes from a Hebrew root which means "to unify" or "to collect together," a "united one."
The "holy, holy, holy" has absolutely nothing to do with the plurality of the being. For one thing, this is poetry and so saying hagios (the Greek word for holy) once, simply might not have fit in with the form of the poem. Secondly, sometimes we just say things like that. If I were to say that my fiance is "pretty, pretty, pretty" that does not mean that I am engaged to three women. It is a figure of speech (that granted isn't used that often in English) to denote that she is really pretty. Likewise, God is extremely holy. Hence the angels sing that he is "Holy, Holy, Holy".Why "Holy, holy, holy?" This is just another hint of the plurality of God and the three in one seen throughout the Scripture.6,7
No, one way of translating it is 'mighty ones' and I believe it is a reference to angels. Throughout scripture we are given examples of people having entertained angels unaware etc. From this we can draw that humans and angels bear a physical likeness. Like God, humans are creative.
That's my take on it anyway.
Hs anyone studdied Hebrew to see what the name Elohyim actually means?
I actually believe that it is the Trinity! After all, Jesus descended upon the earth to us, but He was already with God! I don't believe it was angels because I don't think there is any support that Angels were made in the image of God -- but we were. And they may look like us, but no way did they take part in the creation of the world.
Also, "Elohim", as a plural form of "El" was doing the creating. Angels would not have done the creating, but the Trinity sure would! They are three in one: plural.
However, this is just my opinion!
Here's a great site to read:
w w w . d i r e c t . c a / t r i n i t y / e l o h i m
Sorry about the spaces! It won't let me post a link, so I had to improvise! Haha! C:
Simonline said:In relation to the one and only God, YHWH (Deut.6:4; Isa.43:10-13), yes.
John was written in Greek, not Hebrew.Jn.4:24(a)) the elohim (i.e. 'spirit beings', not 'angels') are non-corporeal entities and thus do not exist as corporeal (i.e. with physical bodies).
No, they are declared to be in the likeness of the one speaking, i.e. elohim, which means God (again, see my last post and if you disagree refute it).Furthermore, human creatures are declared to be made in the likeness of their Creator alone (Gen.1:26-27)
Again, elohim is God. That is what it means, that is what it has always been translated as. The Septuagint translates it as Theos (God). The Latin Vulgate translates it as Deus (God). Die Bibel (German) translates it as Gott (God). And to my knowledge, every English translation translates it as God.and His created elohim ('spirit beings')
Who is accusing you of anything? This is your first post on this thread.This is a classic case of reading your own theological presuppositions into the text (the very thing of which you hypocritically accuse me)?!
Please don't take this as an insult, but eloha is not really the singular form of elohim. el is the singular of elohim. Again, see my post above. You may be being confused because eloha is a proposed rootof el. Or because some have argued that eloha is a primitive singular form of elohim. But this is not confident at all and works under the assumption that el and elohim were originally separate words. Others propose that el was the earliest word from which the plural elohim came. Then eloha, a second singular form, was inferred.Eloha (singular) elohim (plural) means 'spirit being(s)'.
I hate to just repeatedly say this, but see my above post. I have already pointed out some flaws in this view. As such, you cannot simply post this claim as if it is true, you need to refute my arguments against it.Non-corporeal entities that YHWH has created specifically and exclusively to do His bidding or act on His behalf
But the word for angel is not elohim it is mal'ak. Once again, this is something that I went over in my above post.(which is why they are called angels since the correct (non-theological) definition of an angel is 'one doing the bidding or acting on behalf of another' which is also why the Son/Word/Memre, prior to His incarnation as the human creature, Jesus of Nazareth, is also known as 'The Angel of the LORD').
k2svpete said:BTF, a good amount of work there with your posts and I admit that I was working off what I could recall. I'll have to go and have a check now!
I do not agree with the conclusion that this indicates support for trinitarianism however.
Yes.
elohim is the plural of the word el and literally means 'gods'. It is the same word that is used when the Old Testament talks about worshiping foreign gods. However, quite often in the Old Testament the plural term elohim is used to mean God (big 'g' as in the true God). While the term is plural in form, it is singular in idea and in Genesis 1 (and elsewhere) the verbs corresponding to elohim are singular (in this case the word meaning "he created" which is bara').
Because the verbs are singular, and the OT treats elohim as singular (see the Shema in Deut. 6 for instance) it really can't be a reference to the Trinity. I am not denying that the Trinity was present at creation (John 1 comes to mind) but Genesis 1 does not reference the Trinity.
While one way of translating elohim is 'mighty ones' it is a more uncommon use of the word. Likewise, 'angels' is technically a valid way of translating elohim, but Hebrew has another word for angel or messenger (mal'ak). Granted, mal'ak has more of a connotation of divine messenger than what many of us think of as an angel today. All this to say that context is key when translating. In this case, Genesis 1 seems to be talking about the creator God of the Israelites. This coupled with the fact that elohim almost always means a divine being and very frequently, especially in the first five books of teh Bible, this word means God and the fact that the verb is singular which indicates that they were thinking of one god (as opposed to say many angels or mighty beings) I think that it is truest to the text to stick with a translation of 'God'.
But in the Hebrew Bible the word for angel in these passages is usually (always?) mal'ak not elohim.
You are almost right. While el does mean god and elohim is the plural form, don't think of el as the one doing the action. elohim is doing the action. I am trying to figure out how to word what I am saying (pretty much pulled an all nighter last night ) While el means god, it is rare that this word is used to talk about the true God, virtually alwasy, unless the Divine Name YHWH (usually translated the LORD) is used, the word referring to God is elohim, not el. While I agree that the Trinity was involved, this text is not making that claim.
Here we go, I think I have a way of saying it. el is not the Father of the Trinity. That is to say that just because elohim is plural that doesn't mean that one el is one part of the Trinity. They just used the plural form out of respect. Do you see? Again, I need to emphasize the singular-ness of the verbs that are attached to elohim. They are not treating this as more than one agent just like when we say that God did something, we may know that we are talking about the Trinity, but we are treating it like one being. Same sort of idea. elohim is plural (probably out of respect) but it is treated like a singular idea, just like when we talk about God. The difference is that there is no indication that the idea of the Trinity had been revealed to the Hebrew people mainly for the very reasons that I have stated, God is always treated as one being.
As far as the website, Missler has a lot of good things to say. (oh, and here is the link for anyone interested). However, I think he is wrong in a few places.
He is correct in his analysis of the grammar, but he doesn't quite understand the implications. Because the word elohim is treated like a singular noun the last sentence has to be incorrect. If elohim is treated as a singular noun it follows that they were thinking of it as a singular noun and therefore they were not thinking that "Elohim, exists as a plural being."
Again, the reason that el is not used is that it (virtually) never is used. If they were using elohim in contrast to el then they would have followed the grammatical rules and pluralized the verbs to reflect the plurality of the word elohim. The reason that YHWH is not used is the same as elsewhere in the text, which is something that scholars debate about, a liberal view would say that the author of the passage was drawing upon a tradition that preferred to use elohim over the Divine Name while more conservative scholars would suggest that Moses was simply being stylistic and for whatever reason thought that the word elohim fit better with the poetic nature of Genesis 1.
This incorrectly assumes that plurality neccessarily indicates two. If the writer were trying to speak of two beings he would have used the dual form (elohaim) which would mean 'two els'.
This argument presupposes his conclusion. For instance, he assumes that no where does the bible talk of angels creating, but where else would that fact be mentioned other than in Genesis 1 which he is trying to argue doesn't say that very thing? (note, I do not necessarily think that this is a reference to the angels, but I don't think that we can rule it out in this way). Furthermore, it may not say that angels are created in God's image, but it certainly does not deny it either and as someone above mentioned, when angels walk on earth in the Bible they often are mistaken for people and people are made in the image of God so it certainly is not unreasonable to think that they were made in the image of God.
Again, I do not think that he has convincingly argued that these cannot refer to something like the whole host of heaven (something that we see in many passages of the Old Testament) as opposed to the Trinity (something that I would argue never appears in the OT but even those that think that it does would have to admit is significantly more rare than the heavenly court, i.e. God and all his messengers).
But why can't these verses be explained by the plurality of his majesty as well? He correctly identifies the theme of a plural creator throughout the text but he fails to provide reasons why this cannot be a majestic pluarilty. Instead, he seems to think that the plurality found in these other texts proves his point. Quite the opposite is true.
Again, he has not convincingly argued (from a linguistic standpoint) that the other interpretations (that of God and his angels or God in his majesty) cannot be true.
This I simply do not believe to be true. The Brown Driver Briggs lexicon (a fantastic lexicon considered to be very authoritative) does not appear to mention this at all. echad means 'one'. It can also mean 'only' or even 'first' (as in the first of the month, or the first year). While he is correct in saying that it is used when two (or more )things are joined together, the word itself does not have that connotation. The same is true in English. You can say that we have all come together to join and create one forum but that does not mean that the word 'one' actually has the connotation of more than one thing being joined together. It simply means that it can be used that way. But just because it can be used like that does not mean that every time the word 'one' is used we should assume that it is a plurality being joined together. For instance, I have one refrigerator. That does not mean that my refrigerator is a combination of many refrigerators into one singular refrigerator just because the word 'one' can sometimes be used that way. In other words, just because echad sometimes is used as a joining of more than one thing into one does not mean that it always is used that way.
Therefore, this passage really should be translated to reflect that God is the only (echad) God or that God is one (echad).
The "holy, holy, holy" has absolutely nothing to do with the plurality of the being. For one thing, this is poetry and so saying hagios (the Greek word for holy) once, simply might not have fit in with the form of the poem. Secondly, sometimes we just say things like that. If I were to say that my fiance is "pretty, pretty, pretty" that does not mean that I am engaged to three women. It is a figure of speech (that granted isn't used that often in English) to denote that she is really pretty. Likewise, God is extremely holy. Hence the angels sing that he is "Holy, Holy, Holy".
I hope this helps and I hope it makes sense (again, haven't slept in a while).
Excelent - I could not have said it better. In Hebrew grammer the use of a plural can be used to indicate the magnificance of an object or person. They could indicate a mighty singular tree as "trees".
Jeff Benner of the ancient Hebrew research center says essentially the same thing.
But why? see my last post and refute it.
John was written in Greek, not Hebrew.
No, they are declared to be in the likeness of the one speaking, i.e. elohim, which means God (again, see my last post and if you disagree refute it).
Again, elohim is God. That is what it means, that is what it has always been translated as.
The Septuagint translates it as Theos (God).
The Latin Vulgate translates it as Deus (God). Die Bibel (German) translates it as Gott (God). And to my knowledge, every English translation translates it as God.
Again, if you disagree, look at my above post in which I attempt to prove these things and attempt to refute them.
Who is accusing you of anything? This is your first post on this thread.
Please don't take this as an insult, but eloha is not really the singular form of elohim. el is the singular of elohim. Again, see my post above.
You may be being confused because eloha is a proposed rootof el. Or because some have argued that eloha is a primitive singular form of elohim. But this is not confident at all and works under the assumption that el and elohim were originally separate words. Others propose that el was the earliest word from which the plural elohim came. Then eloha, a second singular form, was inferred.
But, even if these are true, they are proposed forms. That is eloha does not (to my knowledge at least) occur in the Hebrew Bible. Therefore, it may be a singular form of elohim in a proto-Hebraic language, but by the time that the Hebrew Bible was written, el was the singular of elohim.
This is all rather technical, but the moral of the story is, as far as the Bible is concerned, we should consider el to be the singular of elohim.
I hate to just repeatedly say this, but see my above post. I have already pointed out some flaws in this view. As such, you cannot simply post this claim as if it is true, you need to refute my arguments against it.
But the word for angel is not elohim it is mal'ak. Once again, this is something that I went over in my above post.
Thank you.
I do not understand what you are saying. You do not like the support for trinitarianism in my post? Because honestly, my conclusions on this particular text could go either way. I don't believe Genesis 1 indicates the Trinity, but I believe in the Trinity because of other things (such as the Gospels).
Simonline said:Because the entire corpus of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures declare that whilst there is only ONE God that ONE God exists as THREE distinct (but NOT separate) Persons - Father, Son/Word/Memre and Holy Spirit, that's why
This is untrue. Hebrew wasn't even commonly spoken in the Holy Land at the time. Aramaic was.I beg to differ. The Gospels were originally written in Hebrew and then quickly translated into Greek so that they would travel much further than just the borders of Israel.
No, they contain Aramaic idioms and sometimes Aramaic transliterations such as Mark 15:34 in which Jesus quotes Psalm 22:1 (or 22:2 in the English version of the OT) in Aramaic which is then transliterated into Greek (Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?). Had he been speaking Hebrew he would have said "eli, eli lamach 'atzavtani". Jesus was speaking Aramaic because that was the common tongue at the time. The very fact that Mark transliterated this particularl passage and then offered a Greek translation (15:34b) suggests that the Gospel was not originally written in Aramaic (or Hebrew) because had it been, he simply would have translated the passage into Greek, not transliterated and translated it.We know this because the gospel accounts contain Hebrew idioms that make perfect sense in Hebrew (according to Hebrew culture) whilst making no sense in Greek and even less sense in English [see: Understanding The Difficult Words Of Jesus by David Bivin and Roy Blizzard Jnr http://www.amazon.co.uk/Understandin.../dp/156043550X ].
Come on now, I am trying to have a cordial conversation here.Talk about being obtuse just for the sake of being obtuse?!
I do not deny the Trinity.The ONE who is speaking is their ONE AND ONLY (Isa.43:10-13) Eternal, Immutable and Tri-Personal Divine Creator, YHWH (which explains both how and why the THREE Persons of the ONE Tri-Personal Divine Creator are communicating with each other during the Creation process).
I have offered a lexicon that refutes this. I have actually cited sources other than myself in an attempt to disprove this. You are simply stating it. Why should I believe you and not the copius amount of reading that I have done on this subjec from a wide variety of scholars?the term 'elohim' means 'spirit beings' [plural] and refers to the myriad finite spirit entities that YHWH has created to do His bidding (act on His behalf) which is why they are also called 'angels'
Well, this was only the second time, so I wouldn't get that worried about it. To avoid having to repeat it again, try offering proof, not just claiming it to be true.[How many times must I repeat myself?]
Again, prove it. I am not saying that you cannot possibly be correct, but I have offered evidence for that which I believe, you simply claim your ideas to be true. Besides, even if you are correct and elohim should be translated as 'spirit being' you cannot deny that it has historically been translated as God (which is what I said and what you said was "Not true".I'll say again. Not true. The term 'elohim' means 'spirit beings' (i.e. entities composed entirely of spirit without any corporeality) and refers (collectively) to the myriad of finite spirit entities that have been created by YHWH to do His bidding, which is why they are also called 'angels'.
Show me an instance in the OT where elohim refers to angels and I will tell you how the LXX translates it.And how does the LXX (the Greek translation of the Tanakh (Old Testament)) translate 'elohim' when it is used with reference to the angels ('mighty ones') as distinct from YHWH Himself?!
Again, my argument is that elohim means God. I cited the LXX and the Vulgate showing that they translate it as God. Your question is 'but when it doesn't mean God, how do they translate it?' My response is, they don't... because it means God.Same question - How do all these different translations translate 'elohim' when it is used with reference to the angels (a.k.a. 'mighty ones') as distinct from YHWH Himself?!
When I told you to refute it, you hadn't referenced my claims, so no, it was your responsibility to refute my claims. Now it is my responsibility to refute that which you claim. Which is what I am doing right now.I do most definitely disagree and I am stating my case for why I disagree and the onus is on you to ligitimately refute my counter argument?
Ok, I forgive you, but I think that this is a good time to bring this up. You are being a little less than cordial even in this very post that you apologize in. I am trying to have a healthy debate with you. Obviously we disagree, but I would hope we can maintain some level of decency. Instead, you accuse me of being deliberately obtuse etc.You are correct. On this point I withdraw my allegation and apologize unreservedly. I had got my wires crossed and believed you to be someone else.
ok.I don't take it as an insult at all but I am not convinced.
All it does is work to establish whose credibility is better on matters of Hebrew. We can skip it and let it be known that it was unresolved and as such neither of our credibilities go up or down on this account.I don't think this semantic debate is integral to the main argument so can we skip it please? Whether the singular is el or eloha makes little, if any difference?
Again, I have quoted from a lexicon that is considered very authoritative in an attempt to prove otherwise. You are simply reafirming this.You need to provide some reason as to why I should believe what you have to say over everything that I have read (which is an awful lot seeing as Biblical interpretation is more than a hobby of mine it is a career).The important point is that elohim does not mean 'god/God', it means 'spirit beings' and the reason why those spirit beings are called 'god/God' is because they have authority and/or power over men (which is why they are also called 'mighty ones') and that is the correct [non-religious/non-theological] definition of the term 'god'. The degree to which the one has authority and/or power over the other is the degree to which the one is 'god' over the other (hence YHWH (having absolute authority and power over all others) is distinguished from all other gods (at least in the English-speaking world) with the use of the capital 'G').
Fair enough.Then I will take a look at your earlier post (even though, because of its length, it will take me a considerable amount of time to respond to it and I fear I will be repeating much of what I have already written)?
Oh, I see what you are saying. I still disagree (because of everything in my original post and other things that I will include as they come up) but at least I understand from where you are coming.I am aware that the word for angel is mal'ak rather than elohim, thank you but elohim has to do with nature (what those creatures are according to essence) whereas mal'ak (angel) has to do with their role or why they exist (i.e. to do YHWH's bidding or act on His behalf) so there is no conflict between elohim and mal'ak since they refer to distinct and different aspects of their existence. The myriad of non-corporeal creatures that YHWH has created are both elohim (spirit beings) and mal'ak (angels).
k2svpete said:This is supported immediately after Gen 1:26 in verse 27.
Yes, except that the God of the OT should not be identified to closely with God the Father (see below).Further verses such as the declaration in Deut that the LORD God is one God and similar about seven times in Is ch. 45 all point to the singularness of one God, the Father.
Oh, I see. That clears up my confusion.The declaration by me that I do not find support for a trinitarian idea in Gen was directed to the general reader and those who have declared their belief that it does.
Because the One God of the OT is not the Father, it is YHWH with whom Jesus is identified with (See John and the Pauline corpus). The OT talks of elohim (which is not a name) and YHWH (which is a name) and these two things are the same being, i.e. God or the LORD.One question I have for you, and anyone else who would care to ask it is - Why would Jesus have supported the scriptures and the tenants therein, chief among which is the singular nature of God as the Father and saviour of Israel, yet somehow be equated with being a part of a triune Godhead that is not supported in the OT. Jesus and the apostles taught from the OT and we have numerous scriptures in both the OT and NT that explicitally declare that God is the sovereign LORD and that Jesus is His son. 1 Cor 8 is a good one to read on this distinction.
elohim is the plural of the word el and literally means 'gods'.
It is the same word that is used when the Old Testament talks about worshiping foreign gods.
However, quite often in the Old Testament the plural term elohim is used to mean God (big 'g' as in the true God).
While the term is plural in form, it is singular in idea and in Genesis 1 (and elsewhere) the verbs corresponding to elohim are singular (in this case the word meaning "he created" which is bara').
Because the verbs are singular, and the OT treats elohim as singular (see the Shema in Deut. 6 for instance) it really can't be a reference to the Trinity.
I am not denying that the Trinity was present at creation (John 1 comes to mind) but Genesis 1 does not reference the Trinity.
While one way of translating elohim is 'mighty ones' it is a more uncommon use of the word.
Likewise, 'angels' is technically a valid way of translating elohim, but Hebrew has another word for angel or messenger (mal'ak).
Granted, mal'ak has more of a connotation of divine messenger than what many of us think of as an angel today.
All this to say that context is key when translating.
In this case, Genesis 1 seems to be talking about the creator God of the Israelites.
This coupled with the fact that elohim almost always means a divine being and very frequently, especially in the first five books of the Bible, this word means God and the fact that the verb is singular which indicates that they were thinking of one god (as opposed to say many angels or mighty beings) I think that it is truest to the text to stick with a translation of 'God'.
But in the Hebrew Bible the word for angel in these passages is usually (always?) mal'ak not elohim.
You are almost right. While el does mean god and elohim is the plural form, don't think of el as the one doing the action. elohim is doing the action.
I am trying to figure out how to word what I am saying (pretty much pulled an all nighter last night ) While el means god, it is rare that this word is used to talk about the true God, virtually always, unless the Divine Name YHWH (usually translated the LORD) is used, the word referring to God is elohim, not el. While I agree that the Trinity was involved, this text is not making that claim.
Here we go, I think I have a way of saying it. el is not the Father of the Trinity. That is to say that just because elohim is plural that doesn't mean that one el is one part of the Trinity. They just used the plural form out of respect. Do you see? Again, I need to emphasize the singular-ness of the verbs that are attached to elohim.
They are not treating this as more than one agent just like when we say that God did something, we may know that we are talking about the Trinity, but we are treating it like one being.
Same sort of idea. elohim is plural (probably out of respect) but it is treated like a singular idea, just like when we talk about God.
The difference is that there is no indication that the idea of the Trinity had been revealed to the Hebrew people mainly for the very reasons that I have stated, God is always treated as one being.
As far as the website, Missler has a lot of good things to say. (oh, and here is the link for anyone interested). However, I think he is wrong in a few places.
He is correct in his analysis of the grammar, but he doesn't quite understand the implications. Because the word elohim is treated like a singular noun the last sentence has to be incorrect.
If elohim is treated as a singular noun it follows that they were thinking of it as a singular noun and therefore they were not thinking that "Elohim, exists as a plural being."